[Vision2020] Purpose of Postings

Wed Dec 22 16:51:34 PST 2010

I'm sure you are correct. When you assert that the number one cable news provider is "much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than that of even the most strident MSNBC pundits," this would in no way cast a negative aspersion on any of its many viewers. If I were to claim that any given department at WSU was providing analysis and perspective that was "much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than which was provided at Zippy's Bait Stand and Waffle Shop," I would be declaring no individual inept and I'm sure that members of that department, its students, and graduates would understand that. Right?

g

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 11:51 AM
To: "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of Postings

> The point is not that Keely's remark was or was not an insult but that
> it was called insulting by Roger, even though it was very tame
> relative to your claims of elitism. But of course he wouldn't want to
> criticize you, would he? That might get him in trouble.
> 
> And NO ONE declared any individuals stupid. That is something that you
> made up and are still making up to keep the tag of "elitist" sticking
> to liberals/progressives. For Christ's, I grew up poor and likely make
> less money than you do but I'm still an elitist!?!
> 
> What was actually said by Keely was that "Fox' analysis and
> perspective" is "much less intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than
> that of even the most strident MSNBC pundits." NOT the folks who watch
> Fox but their ANALYSIS. This might be why their viewers are less
> informed, as was noted in a post on the V last week. It is not that
> the viewers are stupid but that Fox distorts information, just like
> you have done in this post as well as in the previous posts noted
> below.
> 
> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:29 AM, the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>> I guess my hide is simply to thick to be effectively insulted. I did not
>> take Ms. Mix's final sentence personally and it did not change the generally
>> favorable opinion that I have of her. Also, I did not see the mud which I, a
>> man, drug her through, in public. (oddly unprogressive language for someone
>> so politiclly correct?) We disagreed and she held up her end of the
>> discussion as well as anyone, man or woman. Far better in fact then some
>> others on this forum who shall remain nameless.
>>
>> For the record, I still believe that it's a bit elitist to automaticlly
>> declare organizations,
>> individuals, or party's stupid when you disagree with some of their
>> positions or goals.
>>
>> g
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Campbell"
>> <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>> To: "the lockshop" <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
>> Cc: "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>; "Moscow Vision 2020"
>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 9:25 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of Postings
>>
>>
>> It is not too surprising that your selective memory erased this
>> episode. Here is the best link to the whole dialogue:
>>
>> http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-November/072704.html
>>
>> Here is a long summary but feel free to read it again for yourself. We
>> end with Roger criticizing Keely: "You are better than most on the V,
>> but occasionally we all lapse into being personally derogatory when we
>> should try to keep it, just to the issues."
>>
>> Here is the last sentence, from Keely to you (Crabtree), which is
>> criticized by Roger: "It's no cause for shame to not be as bright as
>> someone else, but bad character and conduct, neither the provenance of
>> right or left, is always shameful."
>>
>> The paragraph directly before that was where Keely wrote: "While I'm a
>> liberal, I'm hardly an elitist; I think being a homemaker with a BA in
>> journalism earned 30 years ago doesn't make me any more 'elite' than
>> anyone else I encounter, and in this town a whole lot less so.  But
>> because I favor liberal points of view in politics and society --
>> generally, not always -- doesn't mean that I think liberals are
>> smarter than conservatives.  What I said is that I see network
>> conservatives faltering on the 'reasonable, fact-based argument'
>> component, and engaging in shameful fear-mongering, more than I see
>> liberals do the same.  I stand by that."
>>
>> So her heat was in response to your insulting remarks, specifically
>> these written from you (Crabtree) to Keely:
>>
>> "I understand perfectly well that the thoughts you expressed were YOUR
>> OPINION. They were remarkably similar to the opinions Rose expressed
>> last week. And those regularly expressed by Hanson, Deco, Clevenger,
>> Smith, Cambell [sic], etc. along with many others who have nothing to
>> do with this forum. I get it. FNC is evil. People who watch it are
>> 'less intelligent' then those who look to more progressive news
>> outlets for information."
>>
>> "Please allow me to highlight MY OPINION. It is that when the
>> progressive fall back position in any conversation is a variation on
>> 'Conservatives, whether it be those on FOX or those who watch it, are
>> stupid' very little that is productive will come of it."
>>
>> "The unmistakable essence of the progressive mind set and perhaps one
>> of the the biggest barriers to productive conversation. The elitist
>> (why does that ring a bell?) notion that they just must be right
>> because they imagine that those with whom they disagree are ever so
>> much less intelligent and unreasonable then themselves."
>>
>> But did Keely actually call Fox viewers "stupid"? Did she say that
>> they were "less intelligent," as you suggest? No she didn't. These
>> insults were things you made up. Here is what Keely actually said:
>> "Further,  I find Fox' analysis and perspective to be much less
>> intelligent, accurate, and reasonable than that of even the most
>> strident MSNBC pundits.  I prefer MSNBC's Rachel Maddow to Keith
>> Olbermann, and Olbermann to virtually anyone ever featured on Fox, but
>> not even I would suggest that MSNBC is without bias.  I just think
>> it's much less without fear-mongering and jingoist bigotry than Fox,
>> and that's important to me."
>>
>> In short, Keely said Fox News ANALYSIS was less intelligent than that
>> of MSNBC (which she admitted was biased). You said she called the
>> viewers unintelligent and stupid, which she clearly did not, and
>> called her and progressives in general (including many by name)
>> "elitists." Keely then writes a quite general, vague comment about bad
>> character being worse than being unintelligent. Roger jumps all over
>> that, skipping any criticism of you whatsoever.
>>
>> Does that help? Would you like some other examples?
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 8:26 AM, the lockshop <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> "Keely and Crabtree got into a tussle
>>> recently and he dragged her all through the mud. A woman. In public.
>>> Then she lost it and made some insulting comment (which struck me as
>>> not too bad, by the way) and someone jumped all over her."
>>>
>>> Looking back through my sent items file, I see no mud dragging and most
>>> assuredly see no insult that Ms. Mix might have sent my way. We disagree
>>> on
>>> many, maybe most, topics but I hold her in high regard. Any remarks I
>>> make during one of our discussions are not intended as insult and I surely
>>> take none of hers personally either. Trying to turn spirited disagreement
>>> into some form of animosity is one of the "turn offs" that you mentioned.
>>>
>>> g
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Joe Campbell" <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>> To: "Dan Carscallen" <areaman at moscow.com>
>>> Cc: "Moscow Vision 2020" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:24 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Purpose of Postings
>>> I'll say it again: If you were having a conversation and someone
>>> interrupted with another, completely different conversation, you would
>>> take that as being rude. Am I wrong? And I took the trouble to qualify
>>> the comment, on several occasions, with words like "seems" and to
>>> stress, more than once, that I was just looking for an explanation.
>>> Not sure how I could have been clearer. An explanation was given and
>>> I'm fine with it. End of discussion, as far as I'm concerned.
>>>
>>> I just wonder why it is that a whole bunch of conservative folks can
>>> get away with a whole bunch of actual rude behavior without anyone
>>> saying anything but folks jump on me on a regular basis. Now I'm not
>>> at all suggesting that I don't deserve it. Sometimes I do. But if you
>>> look carefully at my last few posts there hasn't really been a lot of
>>> rude things that I've said. Just asked some (admittedly loaded)
>>> questions, that's all. Not violent rhetoric, by any means.
>>>
>>> I find it interesting that conservatives can get away with a whole lot
>>> of crap that liberals cannot. Keely and Crabtree got into a tussle
>>> recently and he dragged her all through the mud. A woman. In public.
>>> Then she lost it and made some insulting comment (which struck me as
>>> not too bad, by the way) and someone jumped all over her. I can only
>>> imagine what kind of whip would come down were WSU or UI to post on
>>> the front page of their website the progressive version of the NSA
>>> advertisement. There are other examples.
>>>
>>> Part of my participation on the V all these years has been a kind of
>>> experiment, to try to act like Crabtree, Wilson, etc. and dish it out.
>>> Be direct, maybe insulting but don't back down. But the fact is, they
>>> get away with it. Not from Tom, etc. but from you and other more
>>> moderates in town, as well as many of the liberals/progressives. Their
>>> dish-it-out rhetoric works, it is attractive to other conservatives
>>> and moderates. But when liberals like myself use that same rhetorical
>>> style it is (in general) a turnoff. I find that interesting. Part of
>>> my participation is an attempt to understand this; part of it is
>>> because I'm a bit of jackass, no doubt.
>>>
>>> And I'm not making any other point than that. It is interesting that
>>> certain rhetorical styles work for certain political groups and not
>>> others. I didn't mean to suggest there was something to it, some
>>> comment toward you. You are a perfectly reasonable, moderate youngish
>>> man. The fact is lots of reasonable moderates are turned off by
>>> aggressive progressives. I just find that interesting, that's all.
>>> Because in the end, it is ALL just words. Nothing more.
>>>
>>> Best, Joe
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:59 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall the NSA posting anything here on the vizzz, and perhaps me
>>>> calling you rude was a little harsh. I will commend your pitbull-like
>>>> tenacity, though.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I haven't criticized any alleged conservatives on the vizzz, but
>>>> I
>>>> think everyone else does a good enough job on the three of them.
>>>>
>>>> And for some reason you like to throw that label on me. I think some of
>>>> my
>>>> "conservative" acquaintances might disagree, although compared to most on
>>>> the vizzz I probably seem to fall somewhere to the right of the Archduke
>>>> Ferdinand.
>>>>
>>>> Anyhow, I guess I just felt you were looking for something that wasn't
>>>> there in Jeff's posts, I think I know me well enough to think I'd do the
>>>> same for you if I thought someone was doing the same with you.
>>>>
>>>> And that last sentence is terrible, bit it gets my point across.
>>>> Hopefully
>>>> Mrs Hovey doesn't ding me too hard.
>>>>
>>>> Your pal
>>>>
>>>> DC
>>>>
>>>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 19:42, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I said it seemed rude. I didn't say it was rude. I'm just asking for
>>>>> an explanation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I find it interesting that you think I'm rude for asking questions but
>>>>> that NSA post is not rude for its violent rhetoric, insulting a bunch
>>>>> of folks who actually voted for you, including myself. In fact, though
>>>>> you have no problem criticizing me in public, I've never seen you say
>>>>> a single untoward thing toward any conservative. Doesn't matter what
>>>>> they do. That is pretty interesting, isn't it?
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems that if Jeff wanted to start a new post about values,
>>>>> something I very much approve of, by the way, he could have done it in
>>>>> some other way. I'm just trying to find out why he did it this way.
>>>>> That is a reasonable question by any standard, especially standards on
>>>>> the V which seem to think that the defense of slavery is a reasonable
>>>>> position.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Dan Carscallen <areaman at moscow.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think you're reading way too much into it. I'm pretty sure the vizzz
>>>>>> is capable of more than one conversation at a time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, after all, the Christmas season (or whatever you choose to
>>>>>> celebrate this time of year) and that's usually when folks will throw
>>>>>> out
>>>>>> some sort of inspirational stuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, you didn't get all over Tom for his "caturday" post, or
>>>>>> admonish Deb and Wayne for their jabs at ITD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't want to cast aspersions, but your accusation that Jeff was
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> rude is, well, rude.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your pal
>>>>>>
>>>>>> DC
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 19:08, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK but could you just explain to me why you posted this in the middle
>>>>>>> of a discussion on freedom of expression? After all, the title of your
>>>>>>> initial post was "Values to Live By Freedom of expression" which is
>>>>>>> odd to say the least, if not rude. Either you just cut off a
>>>>>>> conversation or your post had something to do with Freedom of
>>>>>>> expression or something else, I know not what. I'm just trying to find
>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What was it about the discussion that led to this abrupt change of
>>>>>>> topic? What was it about sportsmanship, or values in general, that led
>>>>>>> to the post? On the face of it, it is a little like interrupting
>>>>>>> someone in the middle of a conversation with a quite different topic.
>>>>>>> Seems to me it would be considered rude by most standards.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now maybe you have an explanation but to pretend that it does not seem
>>>>>>> odd or rude is just bizarre and not indicative of any of the values
>>>>>>> that you have posted about so far. I think an explanation is in order,
>>>>>>> maybe an apology. You make it seem as if I'm being untoward when all
>>>>>>> I'm doing is asking for an explanation of your odd and/or rude
>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 6:22 PM, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Verbatim - here is the posting I made for the first installment.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My curiosity about the recent plethora of media spots, billboards and
>>>>>>>> ads by
>>>>>>>> the Foundation for a Better Life led me to their website at
>>>>>>>> www.values.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their premise is that the values we live by are worth more when we
>>>>>>>> "Pass
>>>>>>>> Them On".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Their view is that .. "everyone views the world through a unique
>>>>>>>> lens"
>>>>>>>> and a
>>>>>>>> Foundation objective "... is to provide a wide spectrum of values
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> universal, encouraging and inspiring."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They state that "(B)ecause values are worth more when we pass them
>>>>>>>> on,
>>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>>> Foundation for a Better Life chose these values to share with you...
>>>>>>>> Pass It
>>>>>>>> On"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So, for the next several weeks, I will post one of their values and
>>>>>>>> leave it
>>>>>>>> to you to ponder, post and/or pass it on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do encourage you all to visit their website - most inspiring.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> End of first post - additional thoughts below. Visit the website
>>>>>>>> www.values.com. Peruse ... and you will find:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Values. No matter where we live, we live by values. Because they are
>>>>>>>> worth
>>>>>>>> more when we pass them on, The Foundation For a Better Life chose
>>>>>>>> these
>>>>>>>> values to share. Explore each value or suggest your own.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Foundation for a Better Life began as a simple idea to promote
>>>>>>>> positive
>>>>>>>> values. We believe that people are basically good and just need a
>>>>>>>> reminder.
>>>>>>>> And that the values we live by are worth more when we pass them on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Throughout this site, you can pass things on to your friends, family
>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>> co-workers—anyone who might enjoy our site.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We want the stories we share about the positive actions and values of
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>> to serve as inspiration for someone to do one thing a little better,
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> then pass on that inspiration. A few individuals living values-based
>>>>>>>> lives
>>>>>>>> will collectively make the world a better place.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Therein lies my motivation - self examination (one value at a time)
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> sharing. Ah, the time you ask? Well, retirement affords one the time
>>>>>>>> to do
>>>>>>>> many things to which I am grateful.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Happy Holiday Season
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>> =======================================================
>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>> =======================================================
>>>
>>> ________________________________
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3330 - Release Date: 12/21/10
>>> 11:34:00
>>>
>>
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3330 - Release Date: 12/21/10
>> 11:34:00
>>
>>
> 
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet, 
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
>               http://www.fsr.net                       
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20101222/255b14a9/attachment-0001.html 